Abstract

Background: There is no generally accepted methodology for in vivo assessment of antiviral activity in SARS-CoV-2 infections. Ivermectin has been recommended widely as a treatment of COVID-19, but whether it has clinically significant antiviral activity in vivo is uncertain.

Methods: In a multicentre open label, randomized, controlled adaptive platform trial, adult patients with early symptomatic COVID-19 were randomized to one of six treatment arms including high dose oral ivermectin (600µg/kg daily for seven days), the monoclonal antibodies casirivimab and imdevimab (600mg/600mg), and no study drug. The primary outcome was the comparison of viral clearance rates in the modified intention-to-treat population (mITT). This was derived from daily log10 viral densities in standardized duplicate oropharyngeal swab eluates. This ongoing trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05041907).

Results: Randomization to the ivermectin arm was stopped after enrolling 205 patients into all arms, as the prespecified futility threshold was reached. Following ivermectin the mean estimated rate of SARS-CoV-2 viral clearance was 9.1% slower [95%CI -27.2% to +11.8%; n=45] than in the no drug arm [n=41], whereas in a preliminary analysis of the casirivimab/imdevimab arm it was 52.3% faster [95%CI +7.0% to +115.1%; n=10 (Delta variant) versus n=41].

Conclusions: High dose ivermectin did not have measurable antiviral activity in early symptomatic COVID-19. Pharmacometric evaluation of viral clearance rate from frequent serial oropharyngeal qPCR viral density estimates is a highly efficient and well tolerated method of assessing SARS CoV-2 antiviral therapeutics in vivo.

Funding: 'Finding treatments for COVID-19: A phase 2 multi-centre adaptive platform trial to assess antiviral pharmacodynamics in early symptomatic COVID-19 (PLAT-COV)' is supported by the Wellcome Trust Grant ref: 223195/Z/21/Z through the COVID-19 Therapeutics Accelerator.

Clinical trial number: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05041907).

Data availability

All code and data are openly accessible via GitHub: https://github.com/jwatowatson/PLATCOV-IvermectinSequencing data have been deposited in GISAID.

The following data sets were generated
    1. Watson
    2. J
    (2022) PLATCOV Ivermectin
    https://github.com/jwatowatson/PLATCOV-Ivermectin.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. William HK Schilling

    Mahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
    For correspondence
    william@tropmedres.ac
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6328-8748
  2. Podjanee Jittamala

    Mahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  3. James A Watson

    Nuffield Department of Medicine, Oxford University Clinical Research Unit, Oxford, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5524-0325
  4. Maneerat Ekkapongpisit

    Mahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  5. Tanaya Siripoon

    Department of Clinical Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  6. Thundon Ngamprasertchai

    Department of Clinical Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  7. Viravarn Luvira

    Department of Clinical Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-9270-3720
  8. Sasithorn Pongwilai

    Mahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  9. Cintia Valeria Cruz

    Mahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8393-8536
  10. James J Callery

    Mahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3218-2166
  11. Simon Boyd

    Mahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  12. Varaporn Kruabkontho

    Mahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  13. Thatsanun Ngernseng

    Mahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  14. Jaruwan Tubprasert

    Mahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  15. Mohammad Yazid Abdad

    Mahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  16. Nattaporn Piaraksa

    Mahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  17. Kanokon Suwannasin

    Mahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  18. Pongtorn Hanboonkunupakarn

    Bangplee Hospital, Ministry of Public Health, Bangkok, Thailand
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  19. Borimas Hanboonkunupakarn

    Mahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  20. Sakol Sookprome

    Bangplee Hospital, Ministry of Public Health, Bangkok, Thailand
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  21. Kittiyod Poovorawan

    Mahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  22. Janjira Thaipadungpanit

    Mahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6184-3381
  23. Stuart Blacksell

    Mahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  24. Mallika Imwong

    Mahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  25. Joel Tarning

    Mahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-4566-4030
  26. Walter RJ Taylor

    Mahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  27. Vasin Chotivanich

    Faculty of Medicine, Navamindradhiraj University, Bangkok, Thailand
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  28. Chunlanee Sangketchon

    Faculty of Science and Health Technology, Navamindradhiraj University, Bangkok, Thailand
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  29. Wiroj Ruksakul

    Faculty of Medicine, Navamindradhiraj University, Bangkok, Thailand
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  30. Kesinee Chotivanich

    Mahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  31. Mauro Martins Teixeira

    Department of Biochemistry and Immunology, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil
    Competing interests
    Mauro Martins Teixeira, Reviewing editor, eLife.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6944-3008
  32. Sasithon Pukrittayakamee

    Mahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  33. Arjen M Dondorp

    Mahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5190-2395
  34. Nicholas PJ Day

    Mahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2309-1171
  35. Watcharapong Piyaphanee

    Department of Clinical Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  36. Weerapong Phumratanaprapin

    Department of Clinical Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  37. Nicholas J White

    Mahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand
    For correspondence
    nickw@tropmedres.ac
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1897-1978

Funding

Wellcome Trust (223195/Z/21/Z)

  • Nicholas J White

Wellcome Trust (223195/Z/21/Z)

  • William HK Schilling

Wellcome Trust (223195/Z/21/Z)

  • William HK Schilling

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Ethics

Human subjects: The trial was approved by local and national research ethics boards in Thailand (Faculty of Tropical Medicine Ethics Committee, Mahidol University, FTMEC Ref: TMEC 21-058) and the Central Research Ethics Committee (CREC, Bangkok, Thailand, CREC Ref: CREC048/64BP-MED34) and by the Oxford University Tropical Research Ethics Committee (OxTREC, Oxford, UK, OxTREC Ref: 24-21). All patients provided fully informed written consent.

Copyright

© 2023, Schilling et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 6,141
    views
  • 262
    downloads
  • 11
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. William HK Schilling
  2. Podjanee Jittamala
  3. James A Watson
  4. Maneerat Ekkapongpisit
  5. Tanaya Siripoon
  6. Thundon Ngamprasertchai
  7. Viravarn Luvira
  8. Sasithorn Pongwilai
  9. Cintia Valeria Cruz
  10. James J Callery
  11. Simon Boyd
  12. Varaporn Kruabkontho
  13. Thatsanun Ngernseng
  14. Jaruwan Tubprasert
  15. Mohammad Yazid Abdad
  16. Nattaporn Piaraksa
  17. Kanokon Suwannasin
  18. Pongtorn Hanboonkunupakarn
  19. Borimas Hanboonkunupakarn
  20. Sakol Sookprome
  21. Kittiyod Poovorawan
  22. Janjira Thaipadungpanit
  23. Stuart Blacksell
  24. Mallika Imwong
  25. Joel Tarning
  26. Walter RJ Taylor
  27. Vasin Chotivanich
  28. Chunlanee Sangketchon
  29. Wiroj Ruksakul
  30. Kesinee Chotivanich
  31. Mauro Martins Teixeira
  32. Sasithon Pukrittayakamee
  33. Arjen M Dondorp
  34. Nicholas PJ Day
  35. Watcharapong Piyaphanee
  36. Weerapong Phumratanaprapin
  37. Nicholas J White
  38. on behalf of the PLATCOV Collaborative Group
(2023)
Pharmacometrics of high dose ivermectin in early COVID-19: an open label, randomized, controlled adaptive platform trial (PLATCOV)
eLife 12:e83201.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.83201

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.83201

Further reading

    1. Medicine
    Mitsuru Sugimoto, Tadayuki Takagi ... Hiromasa Ohira
    Research Article

    Background:

    Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) is a severe and deadly adverse event following ERCP. The ideal method for predicting PEP risk before ERCP has yet to be identified. We aimed to establish a simple PEP risk score model (SuPER model: Support for PEP Reduction) that can be applied before ERCP.

    Methods:

    This multicenter study enrolled 2074 patients who underwent ERCP. Among them, 1037 patients each were randomly assigned to the development and validation cohorts. In the development cohort, the risk score model for predicting PEP was established via logistic regression analysis. In the validation cohort, the performance of the model was assessed.

    Results:

    In the development cohort, five PEP risk factors that could be identified before ERCP were extracted and assigned weights according to their respective regression coefficients: –2 points for pancreatic calcification, 1 point for female sex, and 2 points for intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm, a native papilla of Vater, or the pancreatic duct procedures (treated as ‘planned pancreatic duct procedures’ for calculating the score before ERCP). The PEP occurrence rate was 0% among low-risk patients (≤0 points), 5.5% among moderate-risk patients (1–3 points), and 20.2% among high-risk patients (4–7 points). In the validation cohort, the C statistic of the risk score model was 0.71 (95% CI 0.64–0.78), which was considered acceptable. The PEP risk classification (low, moderate, and high) was a significant predictive factor for PEP that was independent of intraprocedural PEP risk factors (precut sphincterotomy and inadvertent pancreatic duct cannulation) (OR 4.2, 95% CI 2.8–6.3; p<0.01).

    Conclusions:

    The PEP risk score allows an estimation of the risk of PEP prior to ERCP, regardless of whether the patient has undergone pancreatic duct procedures. This simple risk model, consisting of only five items, may aid in predicting and explaining the risk of PEP before ERCP and in preventing PEP by allowing selection of the appropriate expert endoscopist and useful PEP prophylaxes.

    Funding:

    No external funding was received for this work.

    1. Medicine
    Yao Li, Hui Xin ... Wei Zhang
    Research Article

    Estrogen significantly impacts women’s health, and postmenopausal hypertension is a common issue characterized by blood pressure fluctuations. Current control strategies for this condition are limited in efficacy, necessitating further research into the underlying mechanisms. Although metabolomics has been applied to study various diseases, its use in understanding postmenopausal hypertension is scarce. Therefore, an ovariectomized rat model was used to simulate postmenopausal conditions. Estrogen levels, blood pressure, and aortic tissue metabolomics were analyzed. Animal models were divided into Sham, OVX, and OVX +E groups. Serum estrogen levels, blood pressure measurements, and aortic tissue metabolomics analyses were performed using radioimmunoassay, UHPLC-Q-TOF, and bioinformatics techniques. Based on the above research content, we successfully established a correlation between low estrogen levels and postmenopausal hypertension in rats. Notable differences in blood pressure parameters and aortic tissue metabolites were observed across the experimental groups. Specifically, metabolites that were differentially expressed, particularly L-alpha-aminobutyric acid (L-AABA), showed potential as a biomarker for postmenopausal hypertension, potentially exerting a protective function through macrophage activation and vascular remodeling. Enrichment analysis revealed alterations in sugar metabolism pathways, such as the Warburg effect and glycolysis, indicating their involvement in postmenopausal hypertension. Overall, this current research provides insights into the metabolic changes associated with postmenopausal hypertension, highlighting the role of L-AABA and sugar metabolism reprogramming in aortic tissue. The findings suggest a potential link between low estrogen levels, macrophage function, and vascular remodeling in the pathogenesis of postmenopausal hypertension. Further investigations are needed to validate these findings and explore their clinical implications for postmenopausal women.